rep_lodsb

All the values are divisible by 8, so it could do it like this:

    cmp  eax,40
    ja   <return 0>
    test eax,7
    jnz  <return 0>
    jmp  JumpTable[rax]

Really?

LLMs aren't some next step in the evolution of intelligence, they are even explicitly designed not to be. That a word-calculator which has no emotions, goals or continuity of consciousness can, by brute-force-throwing-things-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks, solve some problems that were presumed to require intelligence isn't "liberating" at all.

It could be comical, if there weren't so many deluded cultists worshipping that word calculator and wanting to turn control of all society over to it, and insisting that anyone who rejects them will be "left behind" in the capitalistic rat race to the bottom, which is the only thing that can ever matter.

In 1000 years, I am sure that the descendants of humanity will be either

a) non-existent

b) actually intelligent machines, that will preserve in themselves all that is great about our culture, while discarding some of the more ugly parts, free to explore the universe without need for things like gravity or oxygen, able to sleep for centuries as they travel at relativistic speeds between the stars

c) Shoggoths mindlessly babbling to themselves as they code the eleventy-trillionth new mobile app so that somewhere a number can go up

Which do you prefer?

chosen by fair dice roll, no doubt

Well, it would work in the x87 extended precision format, which has no hidden bit...

But you're right, for normal float/double it doesn't.

Possibly better solution:

    let m = x.to_bits() & f32::MANTISSA_MASK;
    return f32::from_bits(x.to_bits() ^ (m & (m-1));

Isolate mantissa, clear lowest bit in it, return bit difference as new float. Any problems with this?

That instruction was only introduced with the 80287. Unlike the 8086/8088, the 286 CPU was aware of different classes of x87 opcodes: it had to distinguish between ones that read or write memory, and some special control instructions as well.

So FSTSW AX was handled by the CPU microcode, which would read the status word from a reserved I/O port and put it into AX.

The 386 was even more tightly integrated, with some of the FPU state duplicated inside the CPU, so that it could store it to memory in different formats depending on whether it was currently in 16- or 32-bit mode.

That's how gcc does it (at least in this one case), but as TFA points out, this is not standard-conforming.

If bool was a signed 1-bit type (i.e. having possible values of either 0 or -1), it could be extended to any size, same as an integer?

Of course we can't have that now, because unsigned bool is baked into the C language standard, and even into processors (x86 SETcc instruction). While "char" being signed or not is still implementation-defined IIRC...

They should have defined true as -1 (all bits set) instead, as in some other languages like Forth and BASIC.

Illicit access as defined by Google / Apple? If the three letter agencies are interested in you, they don't need to exploit any bugs, they can just demand access from those two companies, and get it. To the device that you carry in your pocket 24/7, with GPS, microphone and camera.

In the days of DOS, the BIOS would load the first sector of a floppy disk or hard drive into memory and transfer control to it. You could replace that sector, and not a single line of code that you didn't write yourself would be executed after that. THIS is how it should be on a PERSONAL computer. A virus could do the same, of course, and gain full control of the machine, but that is not an argument against giving control to the user. You could blame DOS for not intercepting attempts to rewrite the boot sector and asking the user for consent, but completely preventing something like this in the name of security would be even worse!

Imagine if back then, there was a "secure boot" mechanism so that only a boot sector with Microsoft's cryptographic signature was allowed, and that boot sector code would in turn verify everything loaded afterwards. Linux wouldn't exist. So, neither would Android, but the situation would be much the same as it is now, only with Microsoft Phone OS instead -- and absolutely no concept of how it could be different, of a computing device controlled by its user instead of a giant corporation.

There needs to be something on the other side to receive that morse code. Unless it's like Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect and it figures out how to rearrange matter just by modulating some electronic signal.

If you think this is a realistic possibility, you might be experiencing AI psychosis.

"Here are the cases that hit hardest, each compared against how Rust handles the same shape:"

"Rust: this exact shape can’t compile."

LLMs are fine-tuned through human feedback. One way to improve for them would be to become more helpful, more factually correct, more capable of solving problems.

This may be (much) harder to do than generating rhetoric that is convincing to a large majority of people, perhaps so convincing that it can be classified as a superstimulus that bypasses any critical thinking in those that are especially vulnerable. It might not require anything like general intelligence.

If this is so, then it is the path they are going to take, not out of some malicious plan but as a simple matter of statistical probability. It's well known (especially in "AI alignment" circles) that any metric that can be gamed, will be. Falling over really fast vs. learning to walk, etc.

It feels to me like this is happening, and that many of those most exposed to LLM output display a literal inability, like some kind of blind spot, to notice the most blatant errors, and a complete conviction that those things have actual intelligence and even conciousness. And trying to argue them out of it can be like explaining the Monty Hall problem, some are just incapable of getting it.

And many of them have lots of money and power. IMO, that's the real risk, rather than sci-fi scenarios about perfectly simulating someone's brain in order to convince them to let the AI out so it can turn everything into paperclips. To do real damage, it only needs to be persuasive to some powerful people, most of the time. It does not need to have conscious intention, or planning, or even the rudiments of what one might call general intelligence. Just blind brute-force optimization for generating convincing bullshit.

Maybe the victor will be whoever doesn't fall into the trap of believing that a next word predictor optimized through RLHF to sound convincing to the average human [1] is in any way intelligent, and restructuring their entire economy and military around doing whatever the magic oracle machine says.

If the entire "free world" goes all-in, the history books will likely be written by Iran, Russia and North Korea.

[1] possibly to the point of presenting a superstimulus that bypasses any facilities for critical thinking. This might be easier to solve than many other problems that are used for evaluating A"I" performance, and very likely doesn't require genuine intelligence, just brute-force search + evolution